Over bunting

[TopFrog]

No, not talking about banners hanging over an entry way (over bunting ... get it?)

Anyhoo...

A thought after going to Saturday's game, and please let me preface this by saying I know Schloss is a great coach and knows 1 million times more about baseball than I have or will.

But ....

Twice on Saturday we led off an inning with a double. Man at second, no one out. The runner is already in scoring position, so why try and bunt him over? Especially having a couple of your better hitters bunting with no one out and a runner already in scoring position? You can't really hit into a double play, and you have at least three chances to score the run.

I don't mind a lot of the bunting Schloss does, and he does a lot. But that is not good situational bunting. Why give up an out for a runner already in scoring position?

Yes, I know we swept AFA and I should shut up.

 

[ross]

+1
drives me crazy hit the ball

 

[Duquesne Frog]

With you 100%, Top. Here's as good an analysis as you'll see on the matter. The numbers are for the major leagues, so it is possible that things might look a little different in college, but if you look at the numbers, there is not one instance where the average number of runs in an inning increases if you advance a runner and give up an out. Even if it's first-and-second with no outs vs. second-and-third with one out. It can, in certain situations, increase the probability of scoring ONE run, but drastically reduces the probability of scoring multiple runs ...

 

[sous vide]

+1
drives me crazy hit the ball

Drives any statistician crazy, actually.

 

[guerinrules]

the bunt = instant deflation
you are dead on

 

[TopFrog]

With you 100%, Top. Here's as good an analysis as you'll see on the matter. The numbers are for the major leagues, so it is possible that things might look a little different in college, but if you look at the numbers, there is not one instance where the average number of runs in an inning increases if you advance a runner and give up an out. Even if it's first-and-second with no outs vs. second-and-third with one out. It can, in certain situations, increase the probability of scoring ONE run, but drastically reduces the probability of scoring multiple runs ...

Interesting. I can look at those two scenarios different ways, and I think you have to look at what kind of team you, who is batting, take the pitcher into account, etc. when you are talking about a runner on first and no one out or runners at first and second and no one out. With two on and no one out, if you get the bunt down successfully you have two in scoring position with one out, a nice situation especially if you are in the top or middle of your lineup. You hit into a double play and you likely take yourself out of a potential big inning (two runs or more). But giving up the out might also take you out of a bigger inning. A lot for a manager to consider, IMO, and what his feeling is based on several things at that point.

Early in a game I almost never like playing for one run, unless you are facing a pitcher not likely to give up more than a run or two and you have a guy throwing who you feel can compete in that kind of game.

But a runner at second and no one out, I don't get bunting there.

 

[satis1103]

At the very least I'd like to see no more examples this year of sticking with the bunt when there are two strikes. The bunting is frustrating, but having a guy who's just failed to put down the bunt on a strike twice try one more time is just inane.

 

[Tom Brown]

At the very least I'd like to see no more examples this year of sticking with the bunt when there are two strikes. The bunting is frustrating, but having a guy who's just failed to put down the bunt on a strike twice try one more time is just inane.

Looks like your vocab done growed up with your avatar.

 

[Leap Frog]

Looks like the bats are starting to come around, so maybe Frogs will knock in some early runs and won't need to do so much bunting. Nevertheless, I agree that bunting with a man on second and zero outs, is a waste.

 

[BABYFACE]

Schloss has had them bunt in these situatios most of time since he has been here at TCU. Nothing new here about the strategy. The problem is they aren't executing the sacrifice bunt. I don't know if the players are trying to do too much and are trying to bunt for a base hit instead of moving the run over? A sac bunt does not need to be perfect, just enough to advance the base runner. I don't know if they are pressing or if their ability to bunt got sucked up into some cosmic void.

 

[satis1103]

Looks like your vocab done growed up with your avatar.

And my belly at that. I love the word "inane". And my avatar - just trying to keep consistent with my member tier.

 

[BrewingFrog]

The tactic of nearly constant bunting makes me grind my molars in frustration.

Augie Garrido has done it successfully for years. Schloss has done rather well so far as well. The records speak for themselves.

The idea is to put pressure on the other team's infield. Make them make a mistake. Where I feel that the strategy goes awry is when you have a guy walk out and drop the bat down, making no attempt to fool the opposition. And does it again. And again. Bunting with two strikes is ridiculous.

A better strategy would be to 1.) Drop the bat, but snatch it back and try to slap one down the line. (That'll teach that 3rd baseman to cheat down the line...) 2.) Swing away on the first pitch, late bunt on the second. 3.) Let your #4 hitters hit!

In my Manual of Baseball Stragety, the bunt is a surprise move. Not to be tipped off, unless you are jerking their chain...

Then again, I didn't manage a team to the CWS last season, either.

 

[TopFrog]

Then again, I didn't manage a team to the CWS last season, either.

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn once.

 

[sous vide]

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn once.

I think we all stayed at Holaday Inn last year. ...possibly even including Coach Schloss!

 

[Frog79]

Bunting is the one fundamental that seems to be a problem year in and year out under CJS. Not sure why since he and his assistants' coaching is stellar in virtually every other phase of the game. For me, this is reason enough to bag the sac bunt in most instances.

 

[Frogenstein]

A better strategy would be to 1.) Drop the bat, but snatch it back and try to slap one down the line. (That'll teach that 3rd baseman to cheat down the line...)

That play is in the Frog's arsenal and has been attempted more than a couple of times this season.

 

[swimmerbabe11]

One of the reasons I hate Augie is his love of bunts.

Hate.

I hate that its becoming part of our identity.

 

[Sangria Wine]

Playing for one run per inning is how you get into innings where you score more. It's the premise that with pressure the defense makes more mistakes. A runner at third with one out scores on a sac fly. Playing for a run is typically a very good way to score 5 or 6 runs a game and that typically wins the game. This is akin to whining when Patterson plays to win by a field goal when you want style points. Fact is that more runs score with two outs than in all other situations in baseball combined. The goal every inning is to get the lead off man on, bunt him over a base and get a clutch hit. If you execute that in 5 innings you normally score 10 runs.

 

[sous vide]

Playing for one run per inning is how you get into innings where you score more. It's the premise that with pressure the defense makes more mistakes. A runner at third with one out scores on a sac fly. Playing for a run is typically a very good way to score 5 or 6 runs a game and that typically wins the game. This is akin to whining when Patterson plays to win by a field goal when you want style points. Fact is that more runs score with two outs than in all other situations in baseball combined. The goal every inning is to get the lead off man on, bunt him over a base and get a clutch hit. If you execute that in 5 innings you normally score 10 runs.

If you look at the actual stats across pro baseball at least, this is not the result. Additionally, when you're 1-7 in one run games, your argument becomes doubly poor.

 

[TopFrog]

The goal every inning is to get the lead off man on, bunt him over a base and get a clutch hit. If you execute that in 5 innings you normally score 10 runs.

Get the lead man on first and bunt. That is good baseball, but if the man on first can steal, depending on the pitcher, blah blah. Too many situationals and variables to just make any blanket statement. Also different styles and ways of thinking.

Typically you sac bunt to get a man in scoring position, keep out of a DP that can kill the inning, etc. No need to bunt if the leadoff man is on second with no one out, IMO. It's a waste and takes you out of a potential good inning since you are now giving up an out in hopes the next batter gets a hit or SAC flies, in which case you have a run and two outs. Do that five times a game and you have five runs. Which can be OK. It won't happen five times, but I'll play along.